Asp Forum - process .wav file?

mike re-v

11/7/2003 10:10:00 PM

I would like to play a very short sound effect( .wav
file )
repeatedly.
############################################
aFile = File.new("foo.wav", "r")
# ... process the file

aFile.close
###########################################
the above code is found in pickaxe pg 108
I can r/w regex loop, count words, or characters in a
txt file. Where would you suggest I look to play the
.wav (process) the file using Ruby?
Thanks
re-v

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/wh...

4 Answers

Bill Kelly

11/7/2003 10:19:00 PM

Hi,

From: "mike re-v" <mrmrmr50@yahoo.com>
>
> I would like to play a very short sound effect( .wav
> file )
> repeatedly.
> ############################################
> aFile = File.new("foo.wav", "r")
> # ... process the file
>
> aFile.close
> ###########################################
> the above code is found in pickaxe pg 108
> I can r/w regex loop, count words, or characters in a
> txt file. Where would you suggest I look to play the
> .wav (process) the file using Ruby?

Have a look at: http://www.ruby-talk...

Hope this helps,

Bill

gabriele renzi

11/9/2003 12:21:00 AM

il Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:09:34 +0900, mike re-v <mrmrmr50@yahoo.com> ha
scritto::

>
>the above code is found in pickaxe pg 108
>I can r/w regex loop, count words, or characters in a
>txt file. Where would you suggest I look to play the
>wav (process) the file using Ruby?
>Thanks
>re-v
________

I think Ruby SDL bindings could work..

mg

2/23/2012 3:35:00 AM

On Feb 22, 11:44 am, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:14:47 PM UTC-5, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:30:33 -0800 (PST), Werner <whetz...@mac.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It was paid to government excesses. That's why the country is bankrupt.. Excess is a different word for bankrupt.
>
> > Your comment does not address the point, as usual with you.
>
> > Either you understand nothing or you're a con artist like the
> > shysters in Washington who are trying to confiscate the bonds
> > that working people bought with their SS, in order to prefer
> > the bonds bought by the wealthy I suppose since I haven't
> > heard anything about confiscating those instead.
>
> I'm hardly the problem. I could be dead tomorrow. The problem will not.http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-12/local/me-12224_1_socia...
>
> So you'd still rather not trust your nest egg to capitalists?
>
> Each $100 saved in 1936 would be worth $7 now thanks to government inflated money. Compare this to the stock market. Back in ’36 the DOW was at about $100. Last I looked the DOW is still around $10,000. So instead of losing almost all your savings to state sponsored inflation and depending on Social In-Security, each $100 invested in the DOW then would be worth about $10,000 now.
>
> How many hundreds of dollars have you and your employer paid into the so-called Trust Fund over the years?
>
> How can Social In-Security be in the public interest?
>
> If not the public interest, whose interest has all this money served?http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecu...

Social Security is a good program and about 85% of Americans like the
program and want to see it continued. Administrative costs are
extremely low, less than 1%, I think, so there is no "leaky bucket",
like there is with the medical insurance companies which skim 25%-30%
off the top which goes for private profits or CEO salaries, etc. Most
all of the money participants put in goes back to them, plus interest.
Social Security isn't just a retirement plan, incidentally. It
actually consists of 3 different insurance plans: (1) Old age
retirement insurance, (2) Survivors insurance, and (3) Disability
insurance.

Private insurance companies obviously adjust premiums and benefits all
the time; perhaps annually or even more often sometimes. Social
security, however hasn't had any adjustments since 1983. Rightwingers
look at that as proof that it is a bad program, even though they think
it's just fine when corporations do it. Actually, the main problem
with Social Security is that Republicans don't like it for
philosophical reasons and because they want a piece of the action, and
the other problem is that a lot of Democrats have been drinking the
Republican Kool-Aid.

Jigme Dorje

2/23/2012 5:14:00 AM

On Feb 22, 10:35 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 11:44 am, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:14:47 PM UTC-5, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:30:33 -0800 (PST), Werner <whetz...@mac.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >It was paid to government excesses. That's why the country is bankrupt. Excess is a different word for bankrupt.
>
> > > Your comment does not address the point, as usual with you.
>
> > > Either you understand nothing or you're a con artist like the
> > > shysters in Washington who are trying to confiscate the bonds
> > > that working people bought with their SS, in order to prefer
> > > the bonds bought by the wealthy I suppose since I haven't
> > > heard anything about confiscating those instead.
>
> > I'm hardly the problem. I could be dead tomorrow. The problem will not.http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-12/local/me-12224_1_socia...
>
> > So you'd still rather not trust your nest egg to capitalists?
>
> > Each $100 saved in 1936 would be worth $7 now thanks to government inflated money. Compare this to the stock market. Back in ’36 the DOW was at about $100. Last I looked the DOW is still around $10,000. So instead of losing almost all your savings to state sponsored inflation and depending on Social In-Security, each $100 invested in the DOW then would be worth about $10,000 now.
>
> > How many hundreds of dollars have you and your employer paid into the so-called Trust Fund over the years?
>
> > How can Social In-Security be in the public interest?
>
> > If not the public interest, whose interest has all this money served?http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecu...
>
> Social Security is a good program and about 85% of Americans like the
> program and want to see it continued. Administrative costs are
> extremely low, less than 1%, I think, so there is no "leaky bucket",
> like there is with the medical insurance companies which skim 25%-30%
> off the top which goes for private profits or CEO salaries, etc. Most
> all of the money participants put in goes back to them, plus interest.
> Social Security isn't just a retirement plan, incidentally. It
> actually consists of 3 different insurance plans: (1) Old age
> retirement insurance, (2) Survivors insurance, and (3) Disability
> insurance.
>
> Private insurance companies obviously adjust premiums and benefits all
> the time; perhaps annually or even more often sometimes. Social
> security, however hasn't had any adjustments since 1983. Rightwingers
> look at that as proof that it is a bad program, even though they think
> it's just fine when corporations do it. Actually, the main problem
> with Social Security is that Republicans don't like it for
> philosophical reasons and because they want a piece of the action, and
> the other problem is that a lot of Democrats have been drinking the
> Republican Kool-Aid.

They've been cryiing wolf over it for as long as I can remember.

comp.lang.ruby

process .wav file?

mike re-v

Bill Kelly

gabriele renzi

mg

Jigme Dorje

x Login to ForumsZone